The Supreme Court ruled that government appointees are not automatically entitled to salaries when their appointments, made by an outgoing official shortly after an election, are later invalidated for violating civil service laws. Even if the appointees have already assumed their duties, their right to receive a salary from the government depends on whether their appointment was disapproved due to a violation of civil service regulations. This means that while appointees can serve until their appointment is officially disapproved, they are only entitled to payment if the disapproval wasn’t for a civil service violation; otherwise, the outgoing appointing authority may be personally liable.

Dumaguete’s Divided Spoils: Can a New Mayor Ignore Predecessor’s Appointments?

This case revolves around appointments made by outgoing Dumaguete City Mayor Felipe Antonio B. Remollo, Jr., in June 2001, just before his term ended. When newly elected Mayor Agustin Perdices took office, he refused to recognize these appointments, leading to a legal battle. The central question is whether these last-minute appointments were valid, and if not, whether the affected employees were still entitled to their salaries and damages.

The controversy began when Mayor Perdices announced he would not recognize the appointments. Subsequently, the Civil Service Commission Field Office (CSC-FO) invalidated and revoked the appointments, citing violations of Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circular No. 010988, which aimed to prevent outgoing officials from making mass appointments for partisan motives. This action prompted the affected employees (petitioners) to file a Petition for Mandamus, Injunction, and Damages with the Regional Trial Court (RTC).

The RTC initially granted a writ of preliminary injunction, preventing the city from nullifying the appointments. However, this was later lifted after the CSC-FO’s invalidation became final. The petitioners then pursued administrative remedies, appealing the CSC-FO’s decision to the CSC Regional Office (CSC-RO) and eventually the CSC Proper, but to no avail. The CSC maintained that the appointments were “mass appointments” made by an outgoing executive in violation of CSC Resolution No. 010988.

Building on this principle, the petitioners sought recourse with the Court of Appeals, which also affirmed the CSC’s decision. Undeterred, they elevated the case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court scrutinized the specific circumstances of the appointments, focusing on whether they were indeed made in violation of civil service laws. A key issue was the employees’ entitlement to salaries during the period their appointments were being contested.

The Supreme Court addressed whether the appointees were entitled to salaries, salary adjustments, and other emoluments during the period of dispute. The Court referenced the Revised Omnibus Rules on Appointments and Other Personnel Actions, which generally state that appointments take effect immediately, and appointees are entitled to their salaries unless the appointments are disapproved by the CSC. However, this general rule is subject to an important qualification.

The Court emphasized that if an appointment is disapproved for violating civil service law, the appointing authority (in this case, the outgoing mayor) becomes personally liable for the salary, not the government. Here’s why this distinction matters:

Sec. 4. The appointing authority shall be personally liable for the salary of appointees whose appointments have been disapproved for violation of pertinent laws such as the publication requirement pursuant to RA 7041.

Since the appointments were invalidated for violating CSC Resolution No. 010988 (prohibiting mass appointments after elections), the appointees were not entitled to payment from the city government during the period their appeals were pending.

The Court also rejected the petitioners’ claims for moral and exemplary damages. The court held that Mayor Perdices’ actions did not constitute bad faith or ill motive. While the petitioners may have experienced difficulties and humiliation, the Court found no evidence that the Mayor acted maliciously or with a dishonest purpose. Therefore, the essential elements for awarding damages were not met.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the last-minute appointments made by an outgoing mayor were valid and, if not, whether the affected employees were entitled to their salaries and damages.
What did CSC Resolution No. 010988 aim to prevent?	CSC Resolution No. 010988 aimed to prevent outgoing officials from making mass appointments for partisan motives immediately before or after elections.
What happens if an appointment is disapproved for violating civil service law?	If an appointment is disapproved for violating civil service law, the outgoing appointing authority becomes personally liable for the salary of the appointee.
Are government appointees always entitled to their salaries?	No, government appointees are not always entitled to their salaries; if their appointments are disapproved for reasons constituting a violation of civil service law, they are not entitled to payment from the government.
What must someone prove to be awarded moral damages?	To be awarded moral damages, someone must prove injury sustained, a culpable act, wrongful action by the defendant as the proximate cause of the injury, and that the award aligns with Civil Code’s guidelines, providing clear and convincing evidence of bad faith.
Was there any evidence that the new Mayor acted in bad faith?	No, the Court found no substantial evidence of bad faith or ill-motive on the part of the new Mayor, which undermined the petitioners’ claims for moral and exemplary damages.
What is the difference between a ministerial and discretionary duty?	A ministerial duty involves performing an act in a prescribed manner without exercising personal judgment, while a discretionary duty involves deciding how or when to perform the act.
Did the Supreme Court find forum shopping in this case?	The Supreme Court did not find forum shopping because despite similar facts, the Petition and the earlier G.R. No. 168484 involved distinct issues; specifically, G.R. No. 168484 focused on the validity of the appointments while this case concerned salary claims.

This case underscores the importance of adhering to civil service laws, particularly concerning appointments made by outgoing officials. It clarifies that an appointment’s initial validity does not guarantee a right to salary, especially when civil service violations are found. The ruling serves as a reminder that while an appointee may serve temporarily, the right to compensation hinges on the lawful nature of the appointment.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Leah M. Nazareno, et al. vs. City of Dumaguete, G.R. No. 177795, June 19, 2009